HANDLING CARGO

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 75, 26 September 1922, Page 8

HANDLING CARGO

WATERSIDE WORKERS' CLAIMS

CASE NEARING CONCLUSION

MORE WELLINGTON EVIDENCE,

Further evidence was taken by the Arbitration Court to-day in connection with the dispute as to pay and conditions of work on the waterfront. The eridence given chiefly related to the handling of coal and general cargo at the ■port of Wellington. His Honour Mr. Justice Frazer presided, and there were associated with him on the Bench Mr. Tvl. J. Reardon (representing the employees) and Mr. W. Scott (representing the employers). Mr, J. Roberts appearpd- for the Waterside Workers' Federation, and Mr. W. G. Smith for the cmpjoyers of' labour on the waterfront. •The inquiry opened on the 27th March ■last and evidence has been taken at the ■four chief centres from time to time «ipce that date. No fewer than 122 witnesses have been examined up to the . [present time. It is anticipated that the inquiry will conclude during the present •iweek.

On the opening of the Court to-day, 2iix. W. G. Smith said that at the previous sitting the Court seemed rather to challenge his statement that there had been a fall in the cost of living since 1913. '

His Honour : "The three food groups showed a slight drop, but the other groups brought it up." •Mr. Smith remarked that Dr. M'H•wraith in his evidence stated that during 1913 prices fell in New Zealand 3.7 per cent.

Hl3 Honour: "I do not know where he gets that from. The Government Statistician's figures are different. I have no doubt that Dr. M'Uwraith did the best he could with the figures at his disposal. He was right to this extent : Miat there was a drop in food prices from 1912 to 1913, but taking the other articles there has been a rise."

In reply to his Honour, Mr. Roberts said that there were still about twelve (witnesses to give evidence on behalf of the employees.

His Honour remarked that he would. i-like to get through by to-morrow even- ■ ing. He was afraid he could not (jive , thb case longer than Thursday night.

"Mr. Roberts replied that he would get j through as quickly as was possible. He j recognised that the Court had priren ■ a «. considerable amount of time to the hearing of the case. ' : COAL WORK. John Edward Burgess said he had T>eeri employed for about 14 years on • -waterside work in the port of Wellington. In regard to coal, bunker; work ', -was harder than shovelling in the hold. j Banker work was very dirty; the coal I dust was oppressive, and the men had to fjwork in a confined space. He opposed ■jth'e employers' demands for reduced (rates for trimming coal in a temporary 'hunker. Trimming in bunkers was (dangerous work—more especially to inexperienced hands. A trimming gang should consist of from five to seven men. ! Foreign coal was much dirtier than New I Zealand coal Workers would much pre--1 fer to work New Zealand coal at the I present rate than foreign coal at a. higher i rate. Arthur Garrod said he had been en- ' gaged on waterside work in Wellington [ for about fifteen years—mostly in -geni cral cargo work. The old practice of ; getting men to work a few minutes I past "the" Hour—-oalled fraction timeled to much friction between the em- : ployees and the employers, or their &wa- : men. He disapproved of the employers' . proposal to put eighteen crates of cheese yin a net. He did not think that in the ' case of coastal boats especially that the i employers could be serious m making , such a proposition. It certainly would ■ t not "shorten up the work; it would be ', more likely to impede it. He was of ■ opinion that at present, with the use of slings, the output was better than, with tbe net. As to cement, it would be a saving to shippers if they had doublebags. Wire slings were suitable for tim- ' ber, but not for cement. He preferred .-chain slings for iron pipes and cement. Witness gave particulars of the rate ot ' loading and discharging cargoes of a .number of steamers, also the rate of ■ work done per gang in each case. Ja reply to Captain' Walton, witness said that it might be better to use a spreader in the unloading of cases of / island fruit. Referring to the question | of overtime, witness said he thought the ■working of a ship all night should be ' • voided. , Captain Walton : "How are you to > avoid -working: a ship at night at times without stopping the ship?"—" Surely a ship should not work night and day." "It is a question of the most economical way of working the ship—the most economical for the country. Can you see any objection at the present time, when there are plenty of men ' available, to continue working more continuously in shifts?"—"l think it would be better to leave that matter over until the committee which has been suggested in this Court has considered the adoption of the rotary system." SUGGESTION OF UNFAIR TREATMENT. James O'Donnel, waterside worker, ' said he had been chiefly engaged in freezing work on the waterfront. •He said he had given evidence in a previous case which came before the Court, and ho bad noticed that he had not been called on so often for work as previous to the time of his having given evidence. Mr. Roberts remarked that since the present case had come before the Court, he had received complaints of alleged unfair treatment of certain men who had given evidence. He did not think : that such unfair treatment had come within the knowledge of the principals of the shipping companies. Several of : the men who had given evidence complained that they were not getting as much work as they did formerly. It ' was rather unfair that because a man gave evidence in that Court that any foreman should try and "get one back on him." As he had said, he did not think that any of the principals of the . shipping companies had knowledge of the alleged unfair treatment. Mr. W. G. Smith said that such complaints should, in all fairness, have been .first made to the shipping companies. It was not fair to make the complaints first in open Court and thus give the public th» impression that there had been victimisation. His Honour Temarked that the proper course was to make such complaints lo tin; company concerned, and give the shipping company an opportunity of ! dealing with the matter. Mr. Roberts replied that the men were somewhat independent, imd would endure a good deal before they went to the managers of the shipping companies in regard to such complaints. He did not want to make a song about it, but in view of what witness had said, he thought it only right to make the statement lie had done. Continuing, witness gave details in connection with the handling of frozen meat. Very few men liked "freezer" work, but some one had to do it. • Thomas Kerwin, waterside worker, "taid he had always been paid ior etand-ing-by time for the dase of cargo he

was working. He gave particulars as to the working of different classes of cargo in the port of Wellington. So far as his observation went, there had been no go-slow policy during recent years. The men had worked to the utmost of their capacity. Of course,' during the war, owing t0'650 men going to the front, a number of less experienced men had to be taken on; but since the return of the experienced men the average output of work had increased.

Joseph William Trim gave details as to comparative rates of handling cargo— his experience having extended over many years at a number of ports. Ho was now in the employ of the Wellington Harbour Board. He had always made it a practice to make a note of the rate of discharge of any ship on which he worked. He was sure that the present rate of discharge of cargo was higher than ever it was. With regard to the men working O n the waterfront, witness said he had travelled all over the world, and he had never met better men anywhere than he had met on the Wellington waterfront and on other waterfronts in Now Zealand.

Mr. Roberts said that concluded the Wellington evidence, with the exception of Mr. L. Glover's. The Lyttelton evidence would next be taken.

(Proceeding.)